Vipul - not sure this is best thread for this whole discussion,
but here's a quick answer and if you want longer, I can point you to
various things starting from the Scientific American article [1] and
also an article on integrating applications on the Web that Tim, Eric
and I did, originally published in Japanese but available in English
at [2]. More detailed technical stuff is also available if you
want, but you should be familiar with that literature...
The point your missing, which I've been making for years,
is that on the Web "a little semantics goes a long way" --
here's a simple example. If you have a Database that says you
live in Boston, I have one that says I live near BWI airport, and
Danny has one that has tables of distances between airports and
cities, but these all use their own terminology and live in their own
boxes, then none of the three of us (nor any third party) would know
how far apart you and I live. If all three of us published to
the Web, and used common URIs (or a third party expressed
equivalences) then the system as a whole would have the information -
so there would be Semantics available on the Web that would not be
available before -- the "sameas" type information (expressed
through same URI names) is very powerful, even before you start
worrying about the next levels of semantics.
I'm not arguing that expressive semantics is bad, it is
very valuable in some applications, but the traditional AI community
often ignores the importance of breadth, despite Google rubbing our
noses in it every day. Even more important, once the data
is on the Web in RDF, it can be INCREMENTALLY extended, by the
original provider or by third parties, in ways that do add the
expressivity - something not doable when the datasources are not Web
accessible.
Here's another way to think about it - on the Web my
documents can point to your documents. However, my databases (or
their schemas) cannot point at elements in your databases. my
thesaurus cannot point to words in your thesaurus, etc.
The Web showed us that the network effect is unbelievably powerful,
and we need to be able to use that power for data, terminologies,
ontologies and the rest.
-Jim H.
p.s. You might also want to check out my article "Knowledge
is power: the view from the Semantic Web" which appeared in AI
Magazine in the January 06 issue. It's not available on line
free to non-AAAI members, but I can send you a preprint version if
you'd like - it's aimed at explaining the value of the linking stuff
to the applied AI audience.
[1]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/swint
At 8:08 -0500 3/31/06, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>> I saw a quote not long ago, not sure of the source
(recognise this
>> Jim?), approximately: "what's new about the Semantic Web isn't the
>> semantics but the web".
>
>[VK] This is a great quote and expresses clearly that the value proposition
> in representing and linking vocabularies using URIs stems from the
> Web more than "semantics"
>
>> I take VK's point that this in itself isn't going to convince many IT
>> folks. I think the big persuader there is data integration, even on a
>> sub-enterprise kind of scale.
>
>[VK] Agreed, one of the clearer value propositions is data integration.
>
>> Being able to use ontologies to infer new information is a massive
>> plus (I imagine especially in the lifesciences). Bigger still are the
>> (anticipated) benefits of the Semantic Web when the network effect
>> kicks in. But the ability to use RDF to simply merge data from
>> multiple sources consistently (and query across it), without needing
>> complete up-front schema design is a very immediate, tangible gain.
>>
>> The work done around SKOS (and specific tasks like expressing WordNet
>> in RDF) does suggest RDF/OWL is a particularly good technology choice
>> Jim?), approximately: "what's new about the Semantic Web isn't the
>> semantics but the web".
>
>[VK] This is a great quote and expresses clearly that the value proposition
> in representing and linking vocabularies using URIs stems from the
> Web more than "semantics"
>
>> I take VK's point that this in itself isn't going to convince many IT
>> folks. I think the big persuader there is data integration, even on a
>> sub-enterprise kind of scale.
>
>[VK] Agreed, one of the clearer value propositions is data integration.
>
>> Being able to use ontologies to infer new information is a massive
>> plus (I imagine especially in the lifesciences). Bigger still are the
>> (anticipated) benefits of the Semantic Web when the network effect
>> kicks in. But the ability to use RDF to simply merge data from
>> multiple sources consistently (and query across it), without needing
>> complete up-front schema design is a very immediate, tangible gain.
>>
>> The work done around SKOS (and specific tasks like expressing WordNet
>> in RDF) does suggest RDF/OWL is a particularly good technology choice
>> for thesauri.
>
>[VK] Danny, has articulated some potential benefits:
> - Network effects
> - Schema-less linking based data integration
>
>I would argue that both these benefits stem from the web infrastructure and have
>nothing to do with the "semantics" of anything per-se.
>
>Also, one could argue that having a standardized markup language whether it
>be even HTML or XML enables the above to a significant extent.
>
>So the value proposition question could be:
>
>What is it about RDF that enables network effects and schema less data linking
>better than HTML, relational tables or XML in a more significant manner?
>
>Is the improvement enabled v/s the cost required to achieve it an attractive
>trade off?
>
>Look forward to yours and the groups responses to these questions.
>
>Cheers,
>
>---Vipul
>
>[VK] Danny, has articulated some potential benefits:
> - Network effects
> - Schema-less linking based data integration
>
>I would argue that both these benefits stem from the web infrastructure and have
>nothing to do with the "semantics" of anything per-se.
>
>Also, one could argue that having a standardized markup language whether it
>be even HTML or XML enables the above to a significant extent.
>
>So the value proposition question could be:
>
>What is it about RDF that enables network effects and schema less data linking
>better than HTML, relational tables or XML in a more significant manner?
>
>Is the improvement enabled v/s the cost required to achieve it an attractive
>trade off?
>
>Look forward to yours and the groups responses to these questions.
>
>Cheers,
>
>---Vipul
--
Professor James Hendler
Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery
301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland
301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Web Log: http://www.mindswap.org/blog/author/hendler
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Web Log: http://www.mindswap.org/blog/author/hendler
